On March 10 the bill was reintroduced in the House andthe Senate, ushering in the final act in a six-yearlegislative battle that has become the most bruisingand intense in Washington, one that--literally--pitsCapital against Labor.

For the GOP the politics are straightforward. Woveninto the DNA of the modern conservative is oppositionto unions and unionism of any kind. Defeating the billhas become a kind of jobs program for right-wing hacks:no fewer than sixteen groups are raising money,mobilizing constituents, running ads and lobbyingsenators to kill it.

But for a Democratic Party that for several decades hasawkwardly attempted to be the party of both businessand labor, it's a very difficult circle to square. "Itcomes at a bad time," says a wealthy, business-friendlyDemocratic donor. "[Democrats] are blaming bankers,blaming lots of people, and it sounds like these peopleare anti-business.... A lot of us warned the guysworking for Obama that [EFCA] would be a problem. Theysaid, Don't overreact to this--it's a long way frombecoming law, blah, blah, blah."

In this particular fight, class solidarity--if I mayuse a phrase that has long since gone out offashion--seems to trump partisan loyalties.

Obama supporter and advocate of progressive taxationWarren Buffett has come out against the legislation.And according to that wealthy Democrat I talked with,he's not alone: "I think a lot of Democratic donors aredownright pissed off," he told me. His fellowwell-heeled Democratic donors, he said, are complainingthat "this is the danger of having Democrats controlCongress and the White House." The head of a largeprogressive nonprofit echoed the point. The act, hesaid, "happened to come up a few times" recently withdonors. He was surprised by how intense theiropposition is. "The passion of it threw me off a bit,"he added.

Part of the source of these tensions is the fact thatthe disgraced financial sector (which increasinglyleans Democratic in its donations) has largely thrownits weight behind opposing the bill--despite the factthat these same businesses are being kept on lifesupport by the government. A Citibank retail analystdowngraded Wal-Mart's stock for fear that the billwould pass; the next day she hosted an "informational"conference call featuring a representative from the USChamber of Commerce, who spent the entire call warningdarkly about EFCA. (After the Huffington Post broke thenews of the anti-EFCA call in mid-March, Citi hurriedlyhosted a call with members of the United Food andCommercial Workers.)

"This is the biggest battle between labor andcorporations in this country since the Taft-Hartley Actof 1947," the AFL-CIO's organizing director, StewartAcuff, told me. What makes the battle especiallyintense is that while both sides have attempted toshape public opinion, polls show that the issue doesn'tamount to even a blip on voters' radar. A recent pollfound majority support for a bill that would make iteasier to organize, but only 12 percent of respondentssaid they were following the EFCA bill "very closely."

That means victory will ultimately come not fromshaping public opinion but from pressuring the handfulof swing senators. Each side is ferociously organizingconstituents in those senators' states.

A few of these red state Democrats--in a kind of parodyof squishy centrism--have hinted they'd like to findsome legislative compromise. "This legislation is notperfect," Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor said recently."And while I have been supportive in the past, I willconsider amendments to make it better if and when it isconsidered by the Senate." Nebraska Senator Ben Nelsonsaid he thinks that "there'll be a major effort tomodify it before it ever comes up for consideration,and I'll have to take a look and see what it is then."Some senators have floated compromises, such asextending the amount of time management would have tonegotiate a first contract before binding arbitration.

If Senate Democrats think an amendment will give thempolitical cover, they're fooling themselves. Just askbig business. Speaking on the Citi conference call,Glenn Spencer of the Chamber of Commerce said, "Thereis no amendment you could make to this bill to make itacceptable. From top to bottom it's a bad piece oflegislation. You'd have to start with scrapping thisbill."

Labor also sees EFCA as a black and white issue and iseager to take away the middle ground. Acuff says thefundamental question is, "Are you for unions or are youagainst unions? If you're against this legislation,you're against unions. You can't say you're for unionsif you don't think workers should be able to formunions without fear of retaliation."

Sometime in the next few months, every Democraticelected official is going to have to answer a very oldquestion that in a post-meltdown world is newlyresonant: Which side are you on?

About Christopher Hayes Christopher Hayes is TheNation's Washington editor. His wife works in the WhiteHouse Counsel's office.